Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

t ,romaUnll< gir.neoto thr-BritisH crow n IfiitlaiA 44 free ar.d mdepomknt slat* .« (in can/* deration With h©r sister states) faff full putter to levy w \r, conclude peart*, contract alliances, establish commerce, ami do nil other acts and things iohii-h an indr- pendent state may of right, do " By the trratv of 1782, (trout Britain nrkmuvlcdz- rd the thirteen confederated stnios, Georg in feeing one. 41 to hufrer, sovereign and inde pendent slat©*,” 6nd relinquished in express words “nil chums to tli»: (Soreminent,pio pritty and territorial rights of the same ” The neoplc of Georgia hating hern thus )hvetted with every specie* of sovereignty as claimed uud exercised by Great Britain qvit tho soil and territory within her limits, in the same ample, uncontrolled and unli ted manner as the same has been possi od by that power, it is now noecs.-mry to quire whether she has divested herself of any portion of her sovereignty, by any net or compact, bet ween herself and her sister There are only three of such ft Ms or com pacts, to which sho was a party, by which it enn ho contended, she made any such re linquishment of sovereignty, cither as to domain or empire. They are 1st. The articles of confederation. 2d. The Fede ral constitution, and 3d. The articles of agreement and cession concluded between the United States and Georgia on24tli April, 1902. Kach of these will he examined in their order. 1. The artu lea of confederation. I might save myself nil tnnihle of examining this instalment because whatever provisions it contained have been ahrngati d by the Fed eral Constitution, which whs adopted in its stead—But it will he profitable to do it, Ihj- cau«o many of the provisions in express word k and many morn in principle, were transferred to the constitution. The articles of confederation became binding on Georgia, on 24tli July, 1779, before which time she had not accorded to them. The 2d article of this instrument fixed tit rub’ of its construction by doclnriug that 44 endi sttltc retains its sovereignty, frne- dom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly deleg ited to the United States in Con^resi The sovereignty, right, jurisdiction and * not expressly" rr.intcd, arc retained by •acli State. Vet I thiiiK the period ha* not yet arrived, in which it will not lie admitted that the federal government, not only do not posMtsall powers, nor indeed nil power> not prohibited, hut that it con rxcrriiH only such power ns is expressly yielded, or such as are plainly implied in and necessary U execute the express powers This princi ple was not only admitted hv thq framers of the constitution, ns is evident from the journal of tho convention, and Yates* notes, tmt is warmly insisted on bv nil the early friends of the r nictitation •• * o supported its adoption in tin* Hint© rosr. eiitinns, and nil the early and approved contemporaneous expositors of it. To prove this, let tho pub lished debates of the Etote conventions, and the letters of Madison. Hamilton and J.iy, under tho title of the Federalist, bu consul* led In perfi-ct accordance with this principle nnd analogous to the provision quoted from the 2d article of the confederation, up on the express requisition of tlm people of the sc vend States, ns expressed through their representatives, in the several con ventions, two 1101**11 Imcnta were propos ed and adopted, the first declaring, that “the enumeration in tlio constitution certain rights, shall not be construed to de ny or disparage, others tetnined by the peo ple,“ and the 2d that “ the novveis not de legated to the United Stat** by the constitu tion, now prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In conformity with the plain ahd obvious meaning of these two clauses. I shall admit no delegation of powor to the federal government, express or implied, which in snv manner denies or di spa rag a right clearly reserved by the people of Georgia. Before proceeding further, it should al ho rcmornbcfcd, tli.it this very subject of territorial rights and sovereignty, nnd tli.u of slavery, had well nigh broken up the fed oral convention and destroyed the hopc9 of a happy termination of its labors. Sopi the States who had no vacant lands insisted upon a participation of those who had— Nothing Imt the judicious exertions of the Father of his country was sufficient to prevent tho dissolution of that assembly. With these premises nnd facts before us 1 proceed to enquire. 11 In what part of the constitution tins Georgia surrendered power of Georgia over her soil and territory ' nn y portion of that sovereignty and right of of the Indians, wo have Jornnin in and over in the occupation endeavored to ascertain up to this period, Slid shown to have been complete. What portion of it did sho part with, by this con federation 9 By the (Jth atticlo, tho state* were pro hibited to enter into any 11 conference, agreement, or alliancn, or treaty, with any king, prince or state " Wo shall soon sec, that bv the practice and universal acquies cence of all the states, this was construed not lobe a prohibition to treat with Indian tribes, who of course were not considered as “ Kings, princes, o r stairs* 1 By the mum article*, tho states were pro hibited to engage in nny war without the *: lineal of the United states, unless inva ded, nr had received certain uilvico of a re- ■ lution by smm. nation of Indians to invade By the 0th article, Congress was vested with solo and exclusive power and right, to dctcrmiric on pyaco end war, sending and T0cciv4h£ Ambassadors, “ entering into treaties nnd alliances ," and further on in tha same article, it is vested with tho pow er of “ regulating tjude, and managing all i.lTiirs with tho Indians, not members of any State; provided that the legislative rignt of nny State within its own limits be not infringed oi violated,” &c. It is hulieved that these nro ell tho pro- visions of that instrument which have n hearing on the question, nnd so fir are any of these provisions from depriving the State </f any portion of its rights of domain or rmpirv, over the soil nnd territory within its own limits, there is in tho latter a provision « \press!v reserving to thu State its right of legislation within its own limits — In its practical construction the Indians wore not deemed “ K ings, Prine.cs or Staton,” with whom it was forbidden to the States to make treaties. For in fact Georgia and mnnv other States, made many treaties with the Indians, especially iliiwo within its own limits, intermediate the times of ratify ing tlm utricles of confederation and the nd'xption of tho Federal Constitution — There is in our statute hook no less than Jour treaties with the Indians providing for the relinquishment of lands of great extent, tJmamhcnticii v and validity of which were ftffYcr doubted. It is doubtful at the present day what construction should ho placed upon the power to regulate trade and manage all af fairs with tho Indians, 44 not members of nny State.” It is a notorious truth that for (i yearn aftertho confederation was ratified, almost all the Indians in tho United Slaton were within tho limits of some State.— AVithin that period Congress echumly did Tegulato tra in with them. No part of the territory of Georgia was ceded to tho Uni* ted States until 1802 Yet even he furs the adoption of t ho constitution Congress trou- i« d with and regulated trade with the Indi ans within tho limits of thin Stare. Tho treaties at Hopewell 17e r >, to whi-h Georgia «♦* an individual State, was not a party, suffi ciently provo thiii fist. It may bo tli’ou that the Indians alluded to as “ members of any St ile” and with whom Congress could iml regulate trade were such (and there were enure in Virginia, Now England, and South CaiiX'ma) as had been adopted into the so- ciftl family of tho States ami over whom tho operation of tho municipal laws of the State was extended. But the decision of this point iq^if no great importance. My principal object is answered by shewing, that although, under thu articles of confc.l- oration, the States were prohibited to enter into treaties with any King, Prim e, or M.rto, or to engage in war. except in panic- ul.tr quaes huforo mentioned, and the United States wore vested with solo and exc lusive power of determining on peace and war, ponding and receiving Ambassadors; ca tering into treaties and alliances, at.d lastly was vested likewise with powor to rugnlate trade & manage affair* with all Indians, «&c. it never was conten led that her sovereign- ty over thu toil witlfn her admitted limits was impaired. On tlm contrary that slit* might treat with the Indians and stipulate for thoir lomoval, or circumscribo their hunting ground*, fir adopt them as inetubors of tho social compact, or finally extend its legislation over i very thing and everybo dy “ within He own limits,” upon points Hot inciunpuBhlt with her own comtiiu- non, nr tho urtio)os of confederation. In short, it will be found thin Georgia patted with more of irn sovereignty as th rived f rom Great Britain hv the revolution, in ru- lation to its right of domain, or of dispos ing of the soil and territory within its limits, and of deriving from it ovory supply of is necessities, and other ad van lag* a which il was capable of yielding. 2d. 11 a- Georgia yielded any of her sov- rotgnty on this point, by the adoption of the Federal constitution ? * The investigation of this branch of the subject is sublimely im portant, ns affecting, deeply affecting, tho interests, the rights,the powers and remain ing branches of sovereignty both of tho se veral States and the people. I fool ns though I should sink under tho weight of thu task 1 have undertaken Yot will 1 essut to perform it. There is something like merit even in failure to sustain such a causu In t^e ey* s of all good republicans, 1 shall be loaded with u« *ri grace It is important at once to fix the prin ciple* of con*ruction by which I shull he governed It i» true that there is not lh» f idera! constitution any such clause Words as that quoted from tic second art)- i \r of tho confederation, wz That powers ur tlm territory and soil within her limits, which 1 have attempted to prove she derived from Great Britain. I shall allude to such clauses of the con stitution from which the surrender could he inferred, seperately, nnd without much re gard to the order in which they stand. The 2d clause of the 3d section nnd 4th article, rnay lie said to have some hearing on the subject. It declares “ Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful ruins and regulations respecting the* territory or other property belonging to the United States, and nothing in this con stitution shall he soronstruednstoprejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State." This clause gives to Congress no power to regulate or difpos * of any other than her «/ro#'trrritoi v or other property But it so happened that there were those in the convention, who conten ded that by the treaty of peace with Great Britain, all flu* states nrquiind a right to the vacant territory within the limits of tlm United States defined by that treaty who tlier within the limits of a particular State* or not. There was at that moment a shad ow of n contest between the United States and.Georgia upon this subject, which was not finally settled until the arriolcsof agree ment anti cession were signed between them in H02—yet at tho time of adopting the constitution, the United Stapes h id acquired considerable territory by cession ftntn Vir ginia, New York, and other State.*. There fore) it was necessary to give to Congress n power to regulate nnd dispose of it. But over that which did not belong to tho Uni ted States, and had never been ceded, nnd which dourly belonged to a State, Cougn was vested with no power of regulation or disposition If previous to 1902, she had any chiims to territory within thu limits claimed by Georgia, the United Staton did not dorivo them from tlm constitution, hut from the treaty of peace, or some difficul ties pretended (and Bury wore only preten ded) concerning boundary. But since 1802, th' *o difficulties have vanished. By tin* articles of agreement and cession, sign ed in that year, the claims of Georgia to all lands referred to herself by that compact, arc distinctly admitted and recognised.— To tlm territory thus reserved, then, the Uni ted .States have no claim, and of course Inure no power of regulation or disposition — Nay the claim of Georgia thereto being thus admitted, there is nothing in any part of the constitution which can or is permit ted to ho construed to prejudice” it.— Now what is that claim * \\ hat wits the extent of it iu those fiom whom Georgia derived it: It Was one of complete sove reignty, of da main and empire, as wo lnvc attempted to shov. Ilow wus it derived' By the revolutionary war which terminated in tho admission \>y Great Britain that Georgia, as well ns each of her c.mfodora- toil sistori*, within thoir every liiu.t, was a 44 free sovereign and independent State,” to whom was relimj.ii.dicd “ all claims to tho government, propriety uud territorial rights of thu jiainu."* And thus, as wo have seen, nothing of these claims have boon yielded The next clause I shall examine is that giving to Congress the power “ to regulate com me i co with tho Indian tribes' (3 clause 8 soc. I art.) To a candid nnird, the words used in this giant of power, have nothin, ilia in t nothing hidden, nohing doubt ful, ffhdcr which an implied renunciation of the right of domain whi- h the Suite had t»» the soil vviilrn her limits can he inferred Thu term “Indian tr.bos” sufficiently des cribes them asa wandering people, vet in tho butitor state, or certainly as not having risen above that of herdsint n. But even those could acquire things f u.»e or conven ience, lor obtaining which it was .desirable to have with them "commerce" or trad-', that is, a mutual exchange of commodities. Sunn of these were situated without, and some within the United States. Were the power of regulating this trade with them re tained by tho several Slates, by rent riel ions, imposts, and other inouus, an equal parti cipution iu the benefits of tins trade, could, by some States w hoso local situation ad mitted it, ho denied to the citizens of tho l uitod Slates in general. It was proper therefore, that tho power should be confi de.I to the Union, who could best “regulate or establish general and uniform rules, by which it could he conducted,so imthut its be nefits shoiftd be equal to all alike, and grea ter harmony ho preserved with the tribes thoiuseUcji. Bui is it distinguishing too nicely to say that in calling them “tribes,” (v iiilo others, with whom the constitution confers power to ** regulate commerce,” arc called “ nations'*) tho framers of that in strument intended to deny them a right of domain to the country over which they w underod or hunted ? It seems to me, it is not There must have been some reason for calling them “tribe*,” ondothvrs “nations, and no other can he conceived. But he that us it may, it is perfectly inconceivable, that in assenting to this power, any £taie in the Union intended to relinquish any pur tiou of her sovereignty tailing under th denomination of “ right of domain," other wise they would never have insetted the pro visions we haveqgoted, \iz: “ That notion: in the constitution should be construed to prejudice the claims of any 29tate," loth unappropriated territory within her limits. *1 he Kami.* remark * * gards the only other i*ee Trcitv oT Ponce lion from which a renunciation ».f a right of domain can h* 1 inferred, viz . tho power, '• by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”— This is a grant of power, which evidenth looked to foreign affairs. In the articles of confederation, n similar power had been gran ted, with the addition of the words. “ w ith any King. Prince, or State.” We have al ready attempted to shew that by actual practice, none of the States, conceived that thin power in tho confederation, took from them any portion of sovereignty involved in the right of domain, because many of them proceeded to remove from their unap propriated lands, the Indians who occupied them, smno by war and Violence, as did the Stale of Virginia with respect toiler lands on the Ohio and Kentucky river-*, mid «ome by treaties and contracts, did New Yo*k, Georgia, and perhaps aomo others N»»w it is inconceivable that the omission of the words “ King. Prince,or .Slate,” enu Imcon strued po to enlarge the power, ns to infringe any right of domain, before possessed by the States. Thcro is however very strong proof that some of the States d* I not thus construe the grant. Tho federal constitu tion had been ratified hv a competent num ber of State* on 13lh September, 1788,(1 vol. Laws U S. p. Ik)) nnd went into full operation on 4th March, 17eff, yot on the 22d Sept. 17S9,on2 r »thFeh. 17Kb nay nslat iisIOthnnd 221 June, 17B0, contracts,called treaties, wore made bet ween the Stnteof N York and the Indians within her limits con taining relinquishm* n’* of land for a stipu kited price, and concluded by the Indians with the authorities of the ytatc of Ncv York alone, (see pages 319.20, Q] .22, of 1 vol. Laws U. S.) The validity of the contracts 1 have never heard questioned, and why ? Because these Indians being upon land-* over which Now York possessed a right of domain, and clearly within tl jurisdictional limits of the State, it was con ceived that there was nothing in the fed al constitution which prevented New York from entering into ariangetnentsorfua/Tarts, with such Indians ptoporatory to snttl I lie country, “ disposingof it as she thought proper, ami deriving from it every advan tage it vims capable of yielding/' Better to elucidate my ideas upon this subject, I must he pardoned fi>r what I four may be deemed a digression from the point immediately under dismission. I have said tb it tiie sovereignty of u nation over flic soil and territory of the country it has tak into possession, consists of two rights “1st Tlm domain, by virtue of which the nation alone, mav use this country for the wupplyof its neces3iti- s. may dispose of ii is it thinks proper and derive from it every idvantngo it is capable of yielding, and 2. Flic empire., or the right of sovereign coni- nand, by which the. mli >n directs and reg ulates at its pleasure every thing that posses the country.” 1 have attempted to show that such sovereignty was possessed, claim ed and exercised by Groat Britain before the involution, and by the revolution was transferred and acknowledged to he in th people of Georgia Now, 1 do not contend that no portion of the sovereignty thus ac quired, has not been yielded ; hut 1 insist that upon the minutest examination I cannot discover (nor do I believe.) that any portion of that sovereignty, as comprehending tlm right of domain has boon yield' d until hut that what has been yielded, fills under the second branch of sovereignty, comprehending tho right of empire. In other words that although Georgia cannot, since the lulnptinn of the Federal Constitu tion, direct and regulate at its pleasure eve ry thing th it passes in tlm country, because hv the constitution she has vested in the departments of the f-dorul govern neat pow er to direct and rrgulato many things, yet ♦even now she possesses the power to use the country for the supply of tho necessi ties of tho people of tlm state, may dispose of it as she thinks proper, and derive from il every advantage it is capable of yielding. This remark however is applicable only to sucli parts of tlic territory acquired by the revolution, as she reserved to herself by the articles of agreement nnd cession of 1902, with tho United .States, for by tlioso articles she ceded and renounced all individual claim to both domain and empire t* the country thcreih ceded. This opinion is supported by many de clarations nnd principles insisted on by the s ■ondcst expositors of the constitution.— Mr. Madison in one of the numbers of the Federalist, declares that *' tho powers dele gated by the constitution in tlm federal gov eminent nro/rrr and defined. Those w Inch remain to the states arc numerous and inde finite. The former will be exercised prin cipally on external objects, as war, peace, ncgocintion, and foreign commerce ; with which la^t the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.” (These are all acts of sovereignly belonging to the right of empire ) 44 The powers reserved to the sever d states w ill extend to nil objocts, which in tho ordinary coiii'ac ofnlfiirs, con cern tho lives, liberties ami properties ol the people ; and the internal order, improce- meat nnd prosperity of tlm state" some of these belong to the branch of empire, while those connected with the “ improvement nnd prosperity” of the state, if th y do nut necessarily grow ont of the right of domain, arc so intimately oonneeted with it, as not easily to be < xercisod without it. There is certainly no “ defined poirrr" in the consti tution giving to the federal government the sovereign right of domain claimed hv Geor gia over her vacant territory, and that the federal go vein incut was not intended to exorcise it by nice construction is evident not only from the amendments of tho can- b.itiiU.ni before quoted, but is nim li more so from the repealed declarations of tuany of the states contained in their rustications, in which limy emphatically say “ that ev ery power, jurisdiction and right not clearly delegated to the Congress of the United Skates, or tlm departments of the govern ment thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or their respective state gov ernment* to w hom they may have granted tho samo.”* This, then, was llio sense in which the parties to tint instrunm’it confirm ed the grant of pow ers and it would he treachery to tin* rights of the people anil the States, to say that it was to lie Construed any other sense thgn that which the to it entertained of its provisions doptrd. There is upon this point one otlw thority, with which I shall coin hide this branch of tho discussion, proving beyond doubt th» Row-roigli right ol domain in the State ofGooigia, to the territory in question. II is tho opinion of the Supreme court *n the east) «.f Klelchsr & IV* k, 6 Crunch. Hep p c?7. Thai court confirms tlm opin ion 1 have advanced in relation to (lie sov ereignty of the British crow u, und adverting to the pioc hnn.ition of 1703. wherein ♦ er- Uiiu laud; are resernd for the use of the In dians, it says, “ the reservation for the use of die Indians appear* to he a It mparary ur- rnugemeut, Fiixptmdiug for a trim, the set- tit mint of the country rescind, and the povvcis of the royal governor, within the territory reserved," Ate. llero is at once an admission of the right of domain. The royal Govcrtnom might or might not, sus pend the settlement of the country. It was in i*.s discretion to repeal the a<u of suspen sion. Tho same power was transferred to Georgia, who did for.n lung time a ted lands manner as is a proposition •»«»» .u u« • •— r ... And (in page, 142-3) in thC’name case it 'if children foil within its own fiiii*.a, i;. «u.h fl ucsa arc l him its own judgment shall dictate, jorder, and arc i lion not to he controverted.”—^ participating in lecided that tho nature of the Indian title was nut ssrh as to be absolutely ropugnnni a seizin in fee on the part of the stat*^ These principles, if correct,leave no doubt of the sovereign right of Georgia—The de cision hist adverted to has been made upon a circumstance which took place long s non the adoption of the constitution, and in no part of it, is it even hinted, that cither the power to regulate commerce with the Indi ans Or the power to make treaties, in the slightest degree impaired tho rights of the State. It may not he amiss in discussing this head of our subjort, to ♦ nquird into the nature of the relation in which the Indians stand to the United States, nnd to the State of Geor gia. Aro they an independent people, dis tinct from the people of the United States, not subject to its government or laws, and consequent\y foreigners having tho right of self government ? Or nro they a subordi nate people, subjects of the United States, owing it allegiance, and enti led to its pro tection ? In w hat relation do they (or such of them ns live within her defined limits) stand to the Elate of Georgia ? Are they citizens, denizens or aliens, or inhabitants resident on her soil under the operation of her laws ? Or are they subjects of an in dependent foreign government over whom Georgia.rnn lake no legal or political con trol, and consequently to whom the opera tion of her laws can never be extended ?— No doubt enn exist, blit that their relation to one or the other government is anomalous ; bo much so that it is at present utterly im possible to give to it a name. Were we to ud of eiiizens of an inferior united to society, without al! its advantage*. Their the condition of their fu- judge of the relationship from the manner in which the United States have treated ic nniticii wlicu a- Georgia, who did torn lung time, cxfcrci»ej the sa.nu powor of suspension, and man repeal it w hen she pleases. In another pan of the decision, p. 129, the right of domain them, in the exercise of tho treaty making power, thev are to nil intents and purposes, ns to that Government, u foreign nation, because iu treaties, they uro thus viewed, and on the part of the United States, the treaties thus made with them undergo all the constitutional forms. Whereas the treaties or compacts withthc States undergo no such ferins, inasmuch as the constitution of the United Elates, knows of uo six h thi 1:6 itv with those who owe it allcgianee— Thus all the treaties with the Indians arc ratified by the Senate and arc deemed void, until ratified. On the other hand the treaty or compact nijule with Georgia in 1802, bv which a Inigo territory was ceded, under- went no su h ratification, nor was it deem ed necessary—Yet the Indians resident with in the limits of .the United States, are not deemed vested with the right or power of filming treaties with other nations than the United States, and in case they should make such, they are deemed to he utterly void. Nay this strong .language of the go vernment lids repeatedly told them that they were a subordinate and dependent people, and that their own ideas of their indepen denre were fallacious & must bo yielded 1 have before me a letter fVnm the late Secretary at'War , to Gov. McMinn, agent of the Chero- kees, in which he says, “ it is iiyvain for the Cle rokr.es to hold the high tone which they do, as to their independence as a nation” Thcro are many other public documents from the same department (nono of which I have, hut l well rocnlloctto have read,) in rwhicli the principle is asserted, that they are and ought tob ; treated as a dependent nnd subordinate people. These documents pAsily obtained in ease of contradiction If then they nro dependent and subordi nate, to what government ami laws are they so 9 Those of the United States, within the States, extend only to Federal concerns, ha ving but few municipal characteristics. To subject them to the operation of these alone would ho doing notlung, except as respects such Indians as may live within the limit of a territory of tho United States. Are they subject to the laws and municipal r<\ illations of the States within whoso limits they are ? Heretofore (since tho adoption of the Constitution,) tin* States have not ox tended the operation of their laws to them ? Are they restrained from doing it and by what ? By the constitution of the United Elates, and in what part of it ? Bui sup pose a State to do so in what character would tho Indians come into tho social compact ? As citizens? Heretofore they were not deemed such, and if they were not, a state has no power to make them so ? The work of naturalization, or converting foreigners into citizens is exclusively Confided to the United States, through the instrumentality of unifurm lairs or the subject. But has Congress power to force upon n State any porsons they think fit as citizens ? Sup pose that body pass laws converting the In dians into citizens ol the several States with in which thev are found. Would the State he hound to receive them as such no lens rolcns, and of courso extend to then all the privileges belonging to her other cit izons ? To concede this power to the fede ral government would be of dangerous ten- deify Are the negroes of tho Southern States,/, cc or bond, Ml«Ci>* ? The people of the Southern States fifty no—Ktbcn Congress ran convert ono portion of the inhabitants of a state, called Indians into citiZt&A, then by the exercise of a like p >wor she can Con* vertanothor portion of tho inhabitants of the same state,'called negroes into citizens. If they make a citizen of an Indian, what hinders them flroni making a citizen of a fnc ntgro, nnd if they can nuke a citizen of a free negro, wh.it hinders them from naturalizing slave negroes ? I forbear i urge this enquiry further at this time. Yet tlm period is not distant, probably, when the question must be discussed. Efforts of a most energetic character are making for tin* civilization of.the Indians, eporiallv those within the limits of Georgia. W«* arc told of their advancement in the work — With some it is declared to he near the point of its accomplishment. Tlm Chero* kees have been so flattered as to their |i gresi, that they have at one time declared independence The United Elates have forced them by threats to retract this decla ration, as .Mr. Calhoun would have us be lieve in his correspondence with Governor McMinn, before alluded to. But the avow ed object of civilizing them is to introduce them into the American family. liy whom, hoie. and where is this to be done ? And if hv Congress, bv laics, to he passed under the power confided in the constitution to “establish a uniform rule of naturaliza tion,” and the Indians in (ieorgia aie bro’t within their operation, is the state ofGeor- gia bound by the constitution to receive them as such ? And if they refuse, cannot the l niti d St.iti s direct Gen. Gaines (n fit agent, who would delight in the put sad philanthropic work) to “ employ the military force under bis command," to com pel us to obedience ? Oil, how glorious are the benefits drived to a free people from military chieftains,” and a standing “ tary force” under “ their command” People of Georgia ! these things demand and should obtain your serious considera tion ! Thcro is, however, another point of view in which, if the relation of the Indians to the United States, and the State of t gia, be considered, some of the difficulties we have presented may ho obviated. Vat- tel (book l,c|». 19,) describes a kind of in- llmhitants of a country differing from the ci ftizons of it, in the following words : “ Th* inhabitants, ns distinguished from the citi zc ns, are foreigners, who ure permitted to settle and stay in tho country—Bound to the society by their nuodonce, they are sub licorgu, i/inoru Ilt-nimh J;- ‘ »'* 0»o ).,««.,f the State, whilMhp re- !■ That tl ’ retrain.'' tho Lvgi.hilurc uf lic.t^id, uni il In' ilttt UlTt'VIVII. iiiuhmt . . - . it try witain uer limit*. v f dupon*£ of thu uii.p.iropri- **partictpaU m all the right s „j ■ks may be made us rv I 4 wizens. They enjoy only the advantage-' sr clause in tho Const it u-' • See B it.ftcstian of N York.p 427, Jour- whuh tho law, or custom gives them. Tin SCSI side iu it ; and thev are obliged to defend it, because it grants th*m protection, though I C.nvemiou—I lie Itaiihciuion of six perpetual inhabitants, are those who liav< uilier • lutes contains a.uilar cluuvca. received the right of perpetual residence.— thers ; and ns the Elate has given lo these the rights of perpetual residence, their right passes to thoir posterity .*' In this point of view the Jews were, nnd by sonic yet uro, considered by many civil ized nations. In tho sumo situation at dif- feffcpt periods, were many religious schis matics considered. The Gipseys, or Egyp tians, were somewhat of tho same order.— i he slaves and free negroes of the United States, certainly-full under this description, and so in iny humble opinion, do the Indi ans within tlu limits of Georgia That we have taken from them the absolute fee implc property of the soil,there is no doubt, ind so the Supreme Court of the United Etui oh have said iu their decision of the case >f Fletcher A Peck, already quoted. Whe ther this was done justly by the British go* veminent, from whom irc the people, of Georgia derived it, is not now the question. It teas done:—and none but the enemies of Georgia, or some hair-brained philanthro pists will deny it. In fact the government of the United .States dare’not deny it, for it holds all of iis public domain and territory, by exactly the same kind vf title. But I have used certain exptessionn which require explanation—I have said “ icc the people of Georgia." By these words 1 mean the “ white people of Georgia " Some may pre tend to state at this explanation. Let them do so until they are laughed at for their fol ly 1 choose to call things by their proper names ; uud as citizens of Georgia, 1 know no others than while people, and wish to know no others. The truth is, the continent f America was discovered, conquered and ccupied by the white people of Europe. The white people governed it until the Uo* volutionarv war. The white people of the the United States declared independence, and tliis declaration enured, and was in tended to enure to their own exclusive be nefit, however incongruous it may seem with certain expressions in that declaration, wherein it is laid down as a self-evident truth, “ that all men are created equal,” (Ac At that very moment none of the declare is admitted the negro or the Indian to be his tqisnl. With this declaration neither ne grocs or Indians had any thing to do li was the white people who fought and ac complished their independence. It u as the white people alone of the several provinces, who afterwards formed themselves into bo dies politic, and assumed the character and name of a free, sovereign and independent state. It wus with the white people, that the treaty of peace was inude, and the white people alone, constituting tho members of the social body in each state, were ackrn lodged by that treaty to be free, seven and independent. It was the white people of the Elates who entered into the articles of confederation. It was the white people who framed and adopted tho Federal < on- siitution “ in order to form a more perfe Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote tin* general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posterity. With all these important trans actions, I repeat, the negroes and Indians had nothing to do. All honest men will acknowledge what I have said. Some moon struck moralists may whine about »bc in justice that the high pretending white lo vers of liberty arc. doing to their sable fel low creatures of their own species. Let them whine; but let us be white people still. But returning to the consideration of the condition of the Indians. I have said that the British government, whether By dis covery, conquest, violence, or usurpation,or by whatever other moans is immaterial, sted and possessed themselves of the ab solute fee simple interest, the absolute right of domain over the soil within tho li mits of Georgia, and that from that period whatover tuvors were done to the Indians by permitting their local residence upon tho soil was of grace, favor and kindness, uud not of right, under the principles of national law, and in the rightfulness of this title tints acquired, all the civilized nations of the earth acquiesced. From that very moment, the Indians became, ns to Gicat Britain mere inhabitants of tho territory. Thev agreed to place themselves, and the BritiJi government agreed lo receive them unde its protection, (see the proclamation of 1703.) Their residence on the soil was per missive as has been said. By tho procla (nation referred to, hunting grounds were allotted, or reserved to them. This proc lamation however, as wo have scon from the decision of the supreme court, was a “ temporary arrangement,” (and of course could be repealed at pleasure) “ su»pe.ndi for u time” (not permanently) “ the settle ment of the country reserved,” but winch settlement, by virtue of its sovereign rights f domain and empire, tho British Govern- •ubordinate tc her l»w» whenever she dlmo* nes to extend their operation to them ; it they so far as thev are within the limits of Georgia arc members of that Statt,and have been (according to their own agreement and acknowledgement in the tioaty ot Gulphin* ton,) has the United State* or any other power, aright to make treaties with them separately and distinctly from the constituted authorities of Georgia ? It would seem they hud not Hat not Georgia now, when she shall choose so to do, not only a riifht lo appropriate the lands on which the Indi ans ure resident, nnd now use ns hunting grounds, but t<s extend the operation of the laws to them ns persons, inhabitants, and members of tho body politic of that Stntc . Ihi cartaiftly boa. Could not tho .State of Georgia now enter into contracts or agree nu nts with the Indians within her limits, a: inhabitants or members of the State, os she could with others, citizens and inhabit ants, subject to her jurisdiction and lyws, about their hunting grounds or any other matter not forbidden by some permanent authority ? If they arc her inhabitants, she certainly* could. Would such contracts or agreements, be in violation of the treaty- making power confided to tho General Go vernment ? It would not ; no more than a contract between tho .State and oneol her citizens in which an estate was bought. But to putthisquestionatontetosleep. Suppose the artielcHof agreement nnd cession of 1802, had never been entered into. Could any other State or sovereignty on earth, without the assseut of Georgia, acquffe by treuly with the Indians in her limits, nny earthly right to nnv portion of the lands now on joyed by them ns hunting grounds? Tlu joyed by them as hunting grounds? The most thorough advocate uf federal power on earth, if ho be not insane, would not suy they could an/portion of her sovereignty by the aiti oIoh of agreement and cession concluded her continental possessions, these rather to acquire the lands and settle them as their wants and progressive prosperity required ; nnd thcrcfoie preferred pun-haring there- linquishment of possession hy the Indians for trifling considerations, than to extermin ate them. Tins, ns being more conformable to the principles of humanity bag grown in- ustom sanctioned in many instances by laws, but which laws ure ail ^object to hange oi repeat. By custo.tr tnen, tho Indian-* are permitted to enjoy the advan tage of hunting on the lands, an was their a mode of procuring subsistence, until wej wanted it, at which time those who had dis covered and occupied it, and whose inten tion it is to make it more extensively fcone-»L a it.Y ficial to mankind, have a right to take It is better to get it from their permitted 1 possession without bin .d shed, if wo can. 1 But if we can not, our right to take it by \ v I force, and circumscribe them to such narrow limits as will force them to cultivate the } earth as we do, for the comfort and advan tage of the greatest number, is undoubted upon every principle of national law. 44 \Ve do not therefore deviate from the views of nature,” says Vattel b. l.c. 19, in speaking on tics right, “ in confining the Indians within narrower limits.” Again, says he, “ those nations who inhabit fertile countries Ipit disdain to cultivnto the lands, am! choose rather tolivo hy plunder, are wanting ’to themselves, are injurious to all theif neighbors,& deserve to he extirpated as sova- gesand pernicious boasts.” This description conics Imt little short of our Indians. There are others who to avoid labor, live by hunting and their flocks—This might doubtless ho allowed in lira first ages of tho world, when tho earth without cultivation, produced more than was sufficient to feed its small number of inhabitants. But at present, 3d. Did the State of Georgia relinquish (when tho human race is so greatly multi K dieil, it could not subsist if all njlons were lisposed to live in that manner—Those who with the United Elates in 1802? Elie did,' ^till pursue this idle mode of life, usurp the territory therein ceded, but to the ter- ^morc extensive territories, than, with a rca ritory reserved to herself, not an iota, that Ind not been yielded by the federal consti tution. No argument is necessary to prove this But there arc a few tilings glowing out of these articles of 1802, that deserve no tice. The first is that all the things engaged to he done by the United States ure to bo per formed as conditions to tho cession made by Gcargiu. Every body can understand that whero conditions are annexed to a grant, either the grants become void, or the grantors heemno entitled to remu neration bv action nt law for the breach of the condition. But in contracts between nations and communities, there is no way of coercing remuneration but by force, for there is no court to whom an appeal can be made Consequent I v he can only contend that the grant is void, and by force renos* st'ss himself of the tiling granted, or ir lie cannot do that, content himself with the loss, aficr taxing the other party with n want of good f.iitli This is exactly the case with Georgia about these articles of agreement and cession'. The United States received a -cession of land from Georgia upon several condition)), one of which was that the United States should at llrair own expeuso extinguish for the use of Georgia, as early us the same could he peaceably ob tained on reasonable terms, the Indiup title to all tin 1 land within the reserved limitsof Geor gia. Tho occasions upon which this could have boon done have h* en frequent. Since these articles were entered into, the Indians have hern entirely removed from Ohio, Ken tucky, North and South Carolina, Tenney sec, Missouri, and almost all tho Arkansaw territory, with nono of whom was there any such contract. Five times as much land as remained in possession of thu Indi ans in Georgia, have been obtained in Ala bnma, and much has been obtained in Mis sissippi, (two Status formed out of the ter ritory ended hy Georgia,) large Positions have been made in Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and even Florida tho latest formed Territo ry, will soon be a state in < tho removal of tho Indians. A quarter of .1 century has expired. Tho Indians li.-i been literally driven within the roserved limits of Georgia, and vot vve arc told the United Elates could not fulfil this condition A more gross, wanton, unjust nnd insulting violation of good faith never disgraced the nnnnlsof any nation !! Tlm contract all intents and purposes void. But what ran the Elate of Georgia do? By becom ing a party to tho federal constitution, shef gave up theswor sword, and that purse aro at this moment, employed against her to intimidate her from inent could have prosecuted at its pleasure Tin ind discretion. Thus permitted to reside on the soil, un^cr the protection of the Brit ish government, they wero not received in the character of citizens, they had few rights of citizenship given to them.— They were permitted to adopt their own municipal regulations—To dispose of the country they hid no right—To appropriate ;Ler manner than as permitted, it lit any otL they hiul no right, Their use of it was to bo in common and Ofttip,severalty, the Brit ish Government retpiou^; to itself the power of disposing of il in sucTl manner ns to pro mote its interest and prosperity at its own discretion, as to time and manner. Under this view of tho subject, the Indians were os to the British government, mere inhabit ants upon the territory over which it was sovereign, and.on the transfer of the terri- h. What can she do? Nothingbu liumhlo and curio herself lor her folly.— Oh my native State! a century of humi liation and despair will not sufficicntl atone f n tho error of having made that dii astrous and wretched contract!! , But desperate ns your hopos arc from this contract.it will ho well to enquire into the nature and extent of your rights. Eup- dosc you had never entered into this bar gain, which has been ruinous to you and to you only. Do you really never think or did you think when you ratified lira consti tution that you had given up your right tory to the white people of Georgia, by domain to fur hy that instrument as that n^e treaty of Gal- 7?o, it will be found tho treaty acknowledging them to ho free )V< reignand independent & relinquishing to them all claims ofgovernment,property, &, territorial rights of the same, the people of Georgia received it with all the rights of sovereignty that Great Britain held it, and of courso as to them, tho Indians became mere inhabitants. If then the British govern ment could have settled the country, at its pleasure, so could Georgia. If the Indians wore under its protection, so wore they thereafter under that of tho State of Geor gia, nnd hy reti re phinton, concluded in 17! that the Indians renewed to Georgia the same relation and subjection they had acknowl edged to Great Britain, by admitting for “ themselves nnd all the tribes or towns within their respective nations, within the limits of tho State of Georgia, hnee been. and now are membets of the same, since the day and date of tho constitution of the said State of Georgia.” It the Brit ish government could suspend and rc< o.u- meucptiie settlementofthucountry, so could Georgia. If that could assign or allot, or reserve hunting grounds for the Indians, and forbid for a time the suiveying and ap propriation of the lands thus reserved, so could, and so did Georgia. Could it repeal or annul the uct of suspension ? So could Georgia. There hoiug no law to forbid the survey, (in case of repeal) little doubt enn bo entertained that the grants and surveys of the laud to individuals by Great Britain, woulj have born valid under the British government. E«> hy repealing the laws heretofore passed forbidding the surveying nd granting the lauds reserved to the hull ing grounds of the Iiiduius hy Georgia is little doubt can be entertained ofthcvnhdi- y of the grants of Georgia. Iu fact when Yazoo grants were issued, wus not the .•hole country occupied hy the Indians, and a» not tho Supreme court of the U. States flared those grams to be valid and irre- octible ? If this view of the question he correct, (nod it is submitted for the consideration of tho neon!j of Georgia,) if the Indians with in tne limits of Georgia are inhabitants. [sonablo share of labor, they would havo Joe casino fur, and have therefore no reason to complain if other nations more industri ous, and too closely confined come to tdko possession of part of these lands” (see b. 1. c. 7 ) In these principles Mr. Monroe con curred in his first message to Congress, however much disposed he was to tetract in that wc have last quoted. If acting upi? on these principles we proceeded to settlu the lands allotted to the Indian^ for hunting grounds, what is the most that national law would tequire of us? To ascertain the number of“ Indians within our limits—ap propriate for them as much of the land, as by the exercise of reasonable industry would ^ ho abuudnntlv sufficient to supply their \ wants and comforts. * The residue may / justly apply to our own use. Would I it lead to contention and blood shed?) We must punish them. Would it force \ them to join theii brother savQgea be- I yond the Mississippi? Eo much "the bet- ' ter. Sunli then is the Indian title in the i most extensive signification which even a l canting pretender to philanthropy can re- / quire. Were this course to be pursued, it id hulieved that the country now occupied brt iho Crocks and Cherokee* in Georgia, (in-1 eluding that acquired by the late treaty)) amounts to little lessfthan 10,900,000 acres. Fnr the support of all tho Indians within the limits oi Georgia, 2,000,000, would be more than sufficient. It is believed that the country between the Ewtora and the Ten nessee line, would moro than supply that quantity. The residue might be appropria ted and SP-ilod. and thus cm rease our strength, o,r riches, our resources, our hap piness ns a people, and our respectability us a member of the Union, i But for what end is all this discussion in tended? Fellow citizens, I Lr.ftOton ma king an attempt to demonstrate what I con* qidor as a portion of your ovt-reign tights, Reserved fur your own bene fit when the coiv stitutiou was adopted and never yielded by that instrume t, nnd never intended to be yielded— Coul I we have rncoiv. d the lund quern o of hpnder the late treaty, there had biuu no no- ~ r foessitv for this discu tiou. But it is proble maticnl whether that tr. nty *v II over no ei* termed. It is to ho s ihmittod to Congress for repeal, as is distiivt'.y nvoved. Al though made exclusively by tho agents of the federal government, it is said to have been the work of intrigue and treachery, by one dopartinent of that government, and all the machinery of tins federal colossus has been and will be employed to annul it, and tlirovv the odium of its formation upon the constituted authorities of Georgia. Ehoulr} this ho the issue of the present attempts I shall have lost nil hopes ot acquiring any thing more under our compact with the United Statu*. That government is now the enjoyment of her rights. She rnnnoi retake the country ceded to tho U. States, 1 _ fortwo States havo been formed out of \\A too great and powcrful'to care about being aim »st equal to herself in stiength, whose, [charged with bad faith. In refusing to ful-* hatred has he.cn excited against her, arn from whoso fertile lands the Umtecf State- treasury has been enriched with millions She is not permitted to contract for there moval of tlio Indians, nor to remove them by force. She lias remonstrated, and her \ m C! d fyi yon never could by any exercise of pow er in yourself, settle and appropriate tlm vacant lands which became yours by the treaty with Great Britain? Did you sup pose that because you had vested in the federal government iho power to 4 * regulate” the manner in which blankets, guns, atnutii ,tion and trinkets, should bu exchanged for [venison hums, deer skins and furs, (and this ♦iswhut 1 understand by Indian tr;iUc») vr the power of making treaties with powers entirely foreign to the United State?, that yon were relinquishing any portion oi* your rights to soil, cxpeoially when in the instrument you provided that nothing there in should he construed to prejudice your claims to thu territory within your limits Never! never! B it it is in these articles that wc find the words “ Indian title” arc used. The use of these words iu this compact, Mr Mon roe in one of his messages to Congress (30th March, 1824,) says “ is a full prooi that it was the clear and distinct undeistnn ding of both parties to it, that the Indian hgd a right to the territory, in the disposal of which they wore to be regarded us free agents.” Tho Supreme coutt too in the case of Fletcher & Feck, say that the In dian title is to he respected by nil courts un til it is legitimately extinguished, (by the bye that court did not icsprctit at all,) al though it is not such as to be absolutely- re pugnant toa seizin in lee on the pnrtofGcor- gia. It is therefore necessary to enqtlii somewhat moro closely into the nature c this Indian title. The reader no doubt has distinctly understood what my opinion of it is. It is permissive; and it is upon thi. principle that the Supreme court say theii possession of it is not repugnant to a seizit m fee simple in Georgia. If so, those wh< give permission may withdraw it. Tin truth is that their possession of, or title to it is deriveable from mere custom, ut first per mitted, nnd afterwards protected by law made by those who hold the absolute or fi*< simple interest. The colonizers of Nort* America, disliking the exterminating spin which actuated the Spaniards on the di-icov ery of Hispaniola and Cuba, and same ol refusing < I its engagements and annulling as it will “ * ‘ 1 ' ( attempt to do, the lata treaty, its punitive/ /determination to injure this State is lufltc- jiently manifested. So for from having em- alloyed agents who would pave tho way to a ■ 'ill and final fullilinent of this compact, it remonstrances like those of the colonies, 'has sent n me but Crowell’s, & Andrew* and havo elicited nothing hut insult and re< Gaines, whoso unromitted exertions havo >uti| been used to multiply obstacles, and who — /Have * ’ •• • o been permitted with impunity, nay H with reward, to insult onr government and vilify our public functionaries Thus fur re monstrance ar.ii cou.plaint and request have been equally disregarded. Whut then aro wc to do ? Shall wo cease exertion ? Have we indeed been dragooned by Gen. Gaines, and 41 the forces under his command,” to this state of slavish submission, worse than a state of provincialism ? No, felfew citi zens. This opposition will oply d^jyp us to reinvestigate our rights. I have beofl ma king this attempt, by enquiring into your rights unconnected with tlm late treati, You have been reverted, if 1 enn use such a word to your situation before you entered into the compact of 1802, and my object has been to show what were your rights in that situc.-- tion. I have therefore attempted to prove. 1st That the sovereignty both ns to do main nnd empire of Great Britain, over tho territory and soil within the limits of Geor gia, was complete, and that in settling and appropriating the whole country, this gov ernment could J exercise a discretion control led only by her own view* of policy and propriety. 2nd. That this complete sovereignty, Lf the revolution, passed to tho people of Georgia. 3d. That ^ the Federal constitution she lenouncod only a portion of sovereignty ap pertaining to the branch of empire, but yiel ded none appertaining to the right of do main. 4th. That previous to tho compact of 1802, the people of (ieorgia were restrained only by their own laws from exorcising the full right of domain over all their unappro priated lands. 5th. That by the compact of 1802, they relinquished all sovereignty over the lands therein ceded to tho United States, but re tained all that they had over the portion of territory reserved lot themselves. 5th. I hat by that compact Georgia en gaged tlu: United States to Jo that which she hud power herself to d.% previously, but that on the refusal of the United States to fulfil her engagement, Georgia is only* turned buck to tho powers she had before *1802, and consequently— 7tli. T liat .lie lins a right if slio cliooaoa,by repealing herown law«,by vvhir.h alunpslie is restrained, to ocrupy,' survey and appropriate, and scttlo all tho unappro- printed lands within het reserved limits,trea ty or no treaty. -tli. That any attempts of tlm United statos t* restrain her in the exercise of this titlit, is tyranny and usurpation, unsupport ed by any legitimate construction of the •onstitutiun But it may be enquired, if the L’nitsd states persevere to oppose the survevinf